"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a melting glacier."

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a melting glacier."

Yeah, I read that. He can claim they conceded significant data contamination all he wants..

He proved their data was wrong/contaminated. Which goes along with the previous links that proved the IPCC fudged their numbers and tried to cover it up.

Here, read it again, since your opinion still didn't change the facts :

Quote:

Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.So there are two points to note here. First, the IPCC concedes the existence of a correlation pattern that shows its main data set is contaminated, and it has no coherent counterargument.

So, yeah. You still have nothing new to entertain us? Remember, you're still boring.

He proved their data was wrong/contaminated. Which goes along with the previous links that proved the IPCC fudged their numbers and tried to cover it up.

Here, read it again, since your opinion still didn't change the facts :

So, yeah. You still have nothing new to entertain us? Remember, you're still boring.

I've already said that's what the author of the OPINION piece said.

Address the following:
- author is an economist
- it is an opinion piece
- the IPCC acknowledged his report but said other factors nullified it
- the author still believes warming is human caused
- the author only has a problem with 1980 and on surface temperature data
- 1980 and on surface temperature is not the be-all-and-end-all data set underlying all of the IPCC's conclusions (despite what the author of the OPINION piece says)

But hey, go ahead and post the same paragraph and maybe those points will go away.

Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.So there are two points to note here. First, the IPCC concedes the existence of a correlation pattern that shows its main data set is contaminated, and it has no coherent counterargument.

It's still there, and it's still proof. And still, your opinion doesn't change the facts.
You've failed at disproving this point. It's time for you to try some new argument(s) (as we've been waiting for you to do for, oh, 8+ pages now).

No, it really isn't. Just as if you wrote an opinion piece that said "Global warming is not caused by human induced CO2" and then linked it. He is misrepresenting the IPCC's position. They never conceded that their data was contaminated in any significant way and merely stated that certain objections about their data had been raised (objections which were met with data supporting the IPCC's position).

Are you going to continue to ignore the following:
- author is an economist
- it is an opinion piece
- the IPCC acknowledged his report but said other factors nullified it
- the author still believes warming is human caused
- the author only has a problem with 1980 and on surface temperature data
- 1980 and on surface temperature is not the be-all-and-end-all data set underlying all of the IPCC's conclusions

Yeah, I thought so.

Quote:

And still, your opinion doesn't change the facts.

Just like the author's opinion doesn't change the fact that human induced CO2 is having a warming effect on our climate.

Quote:

You've failed at disproving this point. It's time for you to try some new argument(s) (as we've been waiting for you to do for, oh, 8+ pages now).

No I haven't failed. Your article does not advance your position and neither do the articles linked. I've already outlined why the articles prove nothing. Now go and read through the points I raised and if you have a problem with one, bring it up. Failure to do so equals you conceding my position.

And if you really believed that I needed new arguments, you wouldn't be continuing to come up with opinion pieces and blogs to disprove my supposedly already disproved points.

What else could all of those tribesmen been doing 7k - 4.5k years ago that caused gw to temps higher than today.... based on your goofy theory?

Why would it have to be the tribesmen that raised the global temperature? You seem to be very confused here. The argument isn't that all sorts of global warming is caused only by humans, its that current warming trends can be partly attributed to human activity (e.g.: CO2, landscape changes, etc.).

As to your question about how it is that temperatures were higher in the past: many believe it has to do with Milankovitch cycles.

Why would it have to be the tribesmen that raised the global temperature? You seem to be very confused here. The argument isn't that all sorts of global warming is caused only by humans, its that current warming trends can be partly attributed to human activity (e.g.: CO2, landscape changes, etc.).

As to your question about how it is that temperatures were higher in the past: many believe it has to do with Milankovitch cycles.

WRONG

__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323

Despite the vast number of studies involved, and the large number of contributors to the IPCC reports, the core message of the IPCC hinges on the assumption that their main surface climate data set is uncontaminated. And by the time they began writing the recent Fourth Assessment Report, they had before them a set of papers proving the data are contaminated.So there are two points to note here. First, the IPCC concedes the existence of a correlation pattern that shows its main data set is contaminated, and it has no coherent counterargument.

The IPCC was given proof of their errors. The IPCC agreed their data was contaminated. That actually happened. Your opinion cannot change that. You have failed to disprove that the IPCC used erroneous data, and you have failed to disprove that the IPCC fudged it's data. We're done with this point.

The IPCC was given proof of their errors. The IPCC agreed their data was contaminated. That actually happened. Your opinion cannot change that. You have failed to disprove that the IPCC used erroneous data, and you have failed to disprove that the IPCC fudged it's data. We're done with this point.

The text from the opinion piece and the articles on page 12 do not prove the IPCC admitted that they have significantly contaminated data. We are done on this point: you're wrong.